Ex Parte Hammarwall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

14288481 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/288,481 05/28/2014 David Hammarwall
24112 7590 09/20/2018
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4015-8891 / P32064-US2 6551
EXAMINER
PASIA, REDENTOR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HAMMARWALL and GEORGE JONGREN
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-24, and 26-36. The Examiner indicates claims 8, 17,
25, and 37 are objected to and would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. (Final Act. 34). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a parameterized codebook with subsets for
use with precoding MIMO transmissions. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method in a second wireless communication transceiver
of providing precoder selection feedback to a first wireless
communication transceiver as preceding information for said
first transceiver, said method comprising:
determining channel conditions at the second transceiver;
determining to operate in a first feedback mode when a
first physical transmission channel is used to send the precoder
selection feedback and in a second feedback mode when a second
physical transmission channel is used to send the precoder
selection feedback;
when operating in the first feedback mode, selecting a
precoder from a predetermined set of precoders based on said
channel conditions, and sending a full-range index value, with
the ability to indicate any of the precoders in the predetermined
set, for the selected precoder to said first transceiver as said
precoder selection feedback;
1 Appellants indicate that Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson is the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 2).
2
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
when operating in the second feedback mode, selecting a
precoder from a smaller, predetermined subset of precoders
contained within the predetermined set of precoders based on
said channel conditions, and sending a smaller-range index
value, with the ability to only indicate precoders within the
predetermined subset of precoders, for the selected precoder to
said first transceiver as said precoder selection feedback; and
using a smaller signaling payload for sending smaller-
range index values as compared to the signaling payload used to
send full-range index values.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kim et al. US 2007 /0242770 Al Oct. 18, 2007
("Kim")
Rensburg et al. US 2009/0006518 Al Jan. 1,2009
("Rens burg")
Lee et al. US 2011/0216846 Al Sept. 8, 2011
("Lee")
Goransson et al. WO 2009/025619 A2 Feb.26,2009
("Gorans son")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5, 10-14, 19-22, 26-28, 31, 33, 34, and 36 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Goransson in
view of Lee.
Claims 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 29, and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Goransson in view of Lee and
Rens burg.
3
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
Claims 9, 18, 32, and 35 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goransson in view of Lee and Kim.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 26, Appellants
argue the claims together. (App. Br. 7). Because the claims have similar
limitations, we will address independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim for
the group.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has admitted that the Goransson
reference fails to teach the determining limitation and relies upon the Lee
reference. (Id.)
Claim Construction
With regards to claim construction and the appropriate interpretation
of the word "when," Appellants contend:
The claimed limitation is: "determining to operate in a first
feedback mode when a first physical transmission channel is
used to send the precoder selection feedback and in a second
feedback mode when a second physical transmission channel is
used to send the precoder selection feedback."
One of the ordinary and customary meanings of the word
"when" is to indicate causation. For example, Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines "when" as "in the event that," providing the
example of "a contestant is disqualified when he disobeys the
rules." This does not convey mere coindicence [sic] or "at the
same time," but rather, clearly indicates that the contestant's
disqualification is caused by his disobeying the rules. Similarly,
claim 1 recites operating in specified feedback mode when a
corresponding physical transmission channel is used - at no other
time and for no other reason. That is, the limitation is an
expression of causality - the selection of a feedback mode is
made in dependence on the physical transmission channel being
used.
4
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
(Id. 10) (footnote omitted). We agree with Appellants' claim interpretation.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner's broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term "when" is too broad and unreasonable in
light of the Specification. (Id. at 9-11).
The Examiner maintains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claim term "when" is "'indicating coincidence"' and its customary
meaning. (Ans. 5). The Examiner further finds:
(Id.)
However, the above definition of the Appellant contrasts
with the Examiner's interpretation of"indicating coincidence" or
"indicating to be performed at the same time" for the limitation
"when". Examiner submits that the interpretation applied to the
limitation "when" is also a customary meaning or another
definition that may be applied. First, as also evident from the
definition from the Merriam-Webster website provided by the
Appellant in page 24 of the Appeal Brief, another definition of
"when" may refer to (la) "at or during the time that" or ( 4) "the
time or occasion at or in which". The Examiner's interpretation
is consistent with the above-indicated definitions supplied by the
Appellant. Second, Examiner's broad interpretation is also
consistent with the Specification of the application at Par. 0061.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has relied only upon a single
paragraph (Spec. ,r 61) in Appellants' Specification in an attempt to broadly
interpret the claimed invention. (Reply Br. 2).
We disagree with the Examiner and find that the Examiner's
interpretation of the term "when" is not consistent with paragraph 61
Specification.
Additionally, we disagree with the Examiner's claim interpretation
and the interpretation of the term "when" as used in independent claim 1.
Moreover, we note the originally filed independent claim 10 uses the term
"when" and originally filed independent claim 19 uses the term "if," which
5
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
we find adds further context for the appropriate interpretation of the claimed
invention. Furthermore, Appellants' Summary of the Claimed Subject
Matter identifies paragraphs 58---61 of the Specification to support the
Appellants' interpretation of the claimed subject matter. We agree with
Appellants that paragraph 61 of the Specification also adds context by
disclosing the invention as "selecting the first feedback mode when sending
the precoder selection feedback 44 multiplexed with data on the same
physical channel and selecting said second feedback mode when sending the
precoder selection feedback 44 on the control channel." (Spec. ,r 61).
Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Appellants are attacking the references
individually rather than rejection based upon the combination of references.
(Ans. 6-7). The Examiner further finds that:
Examiner has applied a rejection based on Goransson in view of
Lee and not of Lee alone (emphasis). Briefly, Goransson
teaches/ discloses determining on whether to operate in first or
second feedback mode in Par. 0031. Par. 0031 shows that based
on the knowledge of channel conditions, UE determines whether
to operate in unrestricted feedback mode (i.e. first feedback
mode) or restricted feedback mode (i.e. second feedback mode).
The determination of which feedback mode to operate on is
based on which transmission channel is used as discussed in Par.
0032. However, the difference between Goransson and that of
the claimed invention is that Goransson does not have the
specifics of using different physical transmission channels (i.e.
first and second physical transmission channels) to send
respective precoder selection feedback in respective feedback
modes. Lee, then, is introduced in order to cure the deficiencies
of Goransson. Lee teaches/discloses the claimed subject matter
of using different physical transmission channels (i.e. first and
second physical transmission channels) to send respective
precoder selection feedback in respective feedback modes in
6
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
(Id.)
Table 2, Par. 0093 and 0176 where the feedback channel used for
transmission may vary according to feedback mode, i.e. PUSCH
feedback mode and PUCCH feedback mode. As such, having
the system of Goransson, then given the well-established
teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system
of Goransson as taught by Lee, in order to provide for precoding
feedback that allows for the reduction of the amount of data fed
back to the transmitting side (Par. 0010-0011 of Lee).
We disagree with the Examiner and do not find that the Goransson
reference teaches a determination as recited in the language of independent
claim 1. Rather, we find that paragraph 32 of the Goransson reference
describes that different codebooks can be used with different channels, but
does not disclose "determining to operate in a first feedback mode when a
first physical transmission channel is used ... " as claimed.
Specifically, paragraph 32 of the Goransson reference states:
For example, in an LTE system such as that shown in Figure 3,
the codebook selection information can be transmitted as part of
the Layer I/Layer 2 (Ll/L2) signaling information, e.g., as part
of, or in a manner similar to CQl/PMl/RI (i.e., feedback of
channel state information parameters). This information can be
conveyed on the physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), e.g.,
as part of an OFDM subframe assigned for uplink L 1/L2 control
or, alternatively, as part of the control information field on a
physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein it is
multiplexed together with uplink data from the UE 14.
(Goransson ,r 32).
The Examiner relies upon the Goransson reference to teach everything
in the claimed invention except the using different physical transmission
channels. (Ans. 4--7). As a result, the Examiner has split the determining
7
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
step into two portions and relies upon the Goransson reference to show that
different codebooks are used on different channels, but not the determination
of the channel to select the mode which would have the additional selection
of the codebook based upon the channel conditions which were previously
determined.
We find that paragraph 31 of the Goransson reference teaches
selection of one of the four alternative selections ("one of the four
unrestricted codebook options from its codebook 60 using any desired
technique, e.g., knowledge of channel conditions, etc.").
Appellants contend "Lee teaches determining the physical
transmission channel based, at least in part, on the amount of data
required to indicate the preceding matrix." (App. Br. 8). Appellants
further contend the Lee reference "fails to teach determining to operate
either in a first feedback mode to send a full-range index value or in a
second feedback mode to send a smaller-range index value based on the
physical transmission channel used, as claimed." (Id.). Appellants
contend that "[i]n fact, Lee never suggests determining a feedback mode
based on the physical transmission channel used. Instead, Lee teaches the
opposite------determining the physical transmission channel based on the
amount of data required to indicate the preceding matrix." (Id.). Appellants
further argue "Lee's naming of modes is based on the physical transmission
channel, not ( as the Office asserted) that the selection of modes is so based."
(Id.).
Appellants further contend that "while Lee teaches determining the
physical transmission channel based, in part, on whether to perform
periodic or aperiodic transmission, Lee fails to teach determining the
feedback mode based on the physical transmission channel used, as
8
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
claimed." (App. Br. 9). Appellants further argue "Lee focuses its teachings
on which feedback information to send and then selects a physical
transmission channel based on that feedback information (e.g., its data size
and periodicity)." (Id.)
Finally, Appellants contend that the Goransson reference fails to
disclose the claimed use of different physical transmission channels to send
corresponding precoder selection feedback, and the Lee reference does not
cure the defects of the Goransson reference then it necessarily follows that
the combination of the Goransson and Lee references cannot teach this claim
limitation. (Id.)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has shown portions of
the claimed invention, but neither the Goransson or Lee references nor the
proffered the combination of the Goransson and Lee references teach or
suggest the specific method steps recited in the language of independent
claim 1.
We further agree with Appellants that the Goransson reference does
teach different codebooks for different modes in para. 31 (knowledge of
channel conditions relates to codebooks) and the Goransson reference does
not disclose making a determination of the channel and the associated
codebook thereto as required by the claim language "determining to operate
in a first feedback mode when a first physical transmission channel is used
to send the precoder selection feedback and in a second feedback mode
when a second physical transmission channel is used to send the precoder
selection feedback." As a result, we find error in the Examiner's claim
interpretation and application of the prior art references in the obviousness
rejection.
9
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
Appellants contend:
Reply Brief
Here, the Examiner argues that "selecting the first
feedback mode" and "sending the precoder selection feedback
multiplexed with data on the same physical channel" are merely
coincidental. However, Applicant intended the limitations
"selecting the first feedback mode" and "sending the precoder
selection feedback multiplexed with data on the same physical
channel" to have a causal relationship. Here, the condition
"sending the precoder selection feedback multiplexed with data
on the same physical channel" has a causal relationship to the
consequence "selecting the first feedback mode." Similarly, the
condition of "sending the precoder selection feedback on the
control channel" has a causal relationship to the consequence of
"selecting said second feedback mode."
Such causal relationship is further evidenced by the
present Specification which describes that "[t]he precoding
feedback generator is configured to determine which one of the
two modes it operates in based on, for example, which physical
transmission channel is being used to transmit the precoding
selection feedback .... " Spec., ,r [0056] (emphasis added). As
such, the condition "which physical transmission channel is
used" has a causal relationship to the consequence "which one of
the two modes." This is consistent with the previously described
conditions of "sending the precoder selection feedback
multiplexed with data on the same physical channel" and
"sending the precoder selection feedback 44 on the control
channel" having a causal relationship to the respective
consequences of "selecting the first feedback mode" and
"selecting said second feedback mode."
Clearly, Applicant intended selecting one of two modes to
be causally connected to which physical transmission channel is
used, as claimed. Therefore, the claim term "when" is an
expression of causality and does not mean "indicating
coincidence" or "indicating to be performed at the same time,"
as alleged by the Examiner.
10
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
(Reply Br. 2-3). We agree with the Appellants' claim interpretation.
Appellants further contend:
The Examiner argues that Lee teaches determining a
feedback mode based on the physical transmission channel used.
Examiner's Answer, pg. 7. However, Lee fails to teach
determining to operate either in a first feedback mode to send a
full-range index value or in a second feedback mode to send a
smaller-range index value based on the physical transmission
channel used, as claimed. Lee never suggests determining a
feedback mode based on the physical transmission channel used.
Instead, as admitted by the Examiner, Lee teaches the
opposite (i.e., determining a physical transmission channel
based on the feedback mode). Examiner's Answer, pg. 8.
In arguing that Lee discloses determining a feedback mode
based on the physical transmission channel used, the Examiner
submits that "Lee discloses that the UE may control the UE
transmitter to perform transmission of the preceding matrix
information either through the PUSCH or through the PUCCH."
Id. However, controlling the transmission of information
through PUSCH or PUCCH is different from determining a
feedback mode (e.g., full or smaller range index) based on the
physical transmission channel (PUSCH or PUCCH) used.
Further, Lee never mentions or suggests that the condition of
which physical transmission channel is used is causally linked to
the consequence of which feedback mode. Instead, Lee merely
makes a general statement that the transmission of information is
through PUSCH or PUCCH.
Furthermore, the Examiner argues that Lee discloses
determining a feedback mode based on the physical transmission
channel used since Lee teaches that the feedback modes are
either a PUSCH feedback mode or a PUCCH feedback mode
based on which transmission channel is used. In support of this
assertion, the Office cites to Lee:
The UE may transmit i 1 and i2 through a PUSCH or a
PUCCH. Hereinafter, a feedback mode ofCSI through the
PUSCH is referred to as a PUSCH feedback mode, and a
feedback mode of CSI through the PUCCH is referred to
as a PUCCH feedback mode. The PUSCH feedback
11
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
mode may be defined for use in aperiodic transmission in
which CSI is fed back at a request time point of the BS or
after a predefined time period from the request time point
of the BS. The PUCCH feedback mode may be defined
for use in periodic CSI transmission.
Lee, ,r [0174] (emphasis added).
However, such paragraph shows that Lee's naming of
feedback modes is based on the physical transmission channel
used, not ( as the Examiner asserted) that the selection of modes
is so based. Further, in the claimed invention, the feedback
modes are specific to a first feedback mode that sends a full-
range index value for the selected precoder and a second
feedback mode that sends a small-range index value for the
selected precoder with the feedback mode being selected based
on the physical transmission channel used.
Moreover, Lee teaches that the selection of modes is
based, at least in part, on whether the transmission is aperiodic
or periodic. Here, Lee teaches that the condition of whether the
transmission is periodic or aperiodic is causally linked to the
consequence of which physical transmission channel to use. Lee
never mentions or suggests that the condition of which physical
transmission channel is used is causally linked to the
consequence of which feedback mode ( e.g., a first feedback
mode to send a full-range index value as the precoder selection
feedback or a second feedback mode to send a smaller-range
index value as the precoder selection feedback), as claimed.
As explained, Lee focuses its teachings on the causal
relationship between the condition of the type of transmission
( e.g., aperiodic or periodic) and the consequence of which
physical transmission channel ( e.g., PUSCH or PUCCH) to use.
In contrast, the claimed invention describes the causal
relationship between the condition of which physical
transmission channel to use (in response to channel conditions)
and the consequence of which feedback information (e.g[.,] full
or short-range index value) to send.
Therefore, Lee fails to mention or suggest determining a
feedback mode based on the physical transmission channel used,
as claimed.
12
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
(Reply Br. 3--4)(underlining removed).
As a result, we find error in the Examiner's claim interpretation and
application of the prior art the Goransson and Lee references in the
obviousness rejection, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
illustrative independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims.
Independent claims 10, 19, and 26 contain similar limitations which the
Examiner has not shown to be obvious based upon the combination of the
Goransson and Lee references. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejections of independent claims 10, 19, and 26 and their
respective dependent claims for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 29, and 30
With respect to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 29, and 30,
Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for or patentability over the
combination of Goransson, Lee, and Rens burg in the Appeal Brief or Reply
Brief. But, the Examiner does not identify how the Rensburg reference
remedies the deficiency noted above in the rejection of independent claims
1, 10, 19, and 26 based upon the combination of Goransson and Lee. As a
result, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 29, and
30.
Claims 9, 18, 32, and 35
Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11-12). The Examiner does not identify
how the Kim reference remedies the deficiency noted above in the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 10 based upon the combination of Goransson
and Lee. As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9, 18, 32, and
35.
13
Appeal2018-000434
Application 14/288,481
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-24, and 26-36
based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-24, and 26-36.
REVERSED
14